Bloomberg Article On House Bill

[jmeisner 0]

I was incredibly lucky to have the online poker craze coincide with the time when I was expected to get an actual (boring) job. Late in high school and during my freshman year of college, my parents seemed more confused than anything at the 1000 dollar checks that kept coming in the mail, but they didn't insist that I get a job as long as I was making money.After reading this article, however, I think I'm through. I just cashed out my remaining 8000 dollars and don't plan on playing online again; I just don't think making spending money as an 18 year-old is worth risking my entire future in the business world. After all, the amount of money I'm making now doesn't even come close to the average American household income and also pales in comparison to what my parents are paying for my education.I think you all should consider cashing out and no longer playing as well, or at least cash out and wait until we have a better idea of what's going to happen to the online poker industry.Here's the article:---------------------------------------------------House Approves Measure to Restrict Online Gambling in the U.S.2006-07-11 15:20 (New York)By William Roberts July 11 (Bloomberg) -- The House of Representatives approved a measure to stifle online gambling in the U.S. by restricting the flow of money to illegal Internet gaming sites. Credit-card companies would be forbidden to collect payments for Internet casinos, and financial institutions would have to help law-enforcement shut down money transfers to illegal gaming sites under the measure approved 317 to 93 today. ``This bill cuts off the money sources for these illegal businesses,'' said Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who co-wrote the bill with Representative James Leach, an Iowa Republican. Online gambling is a growing $12 billion-a-year business that includes companies such as PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings Plc. operating in locations such as Gibraltar and Antigua. Shares of PartyGaming, the world's biggest Web poker company, fell 5.9 percent last week after the American Gaming Association said it expected the measure to win House approval. The bill now goes to the Senate, where similar measures have failed. Las Vegas casinos are lobbying senators to study legalizing online gaming in the U.S. Supporters of the House bill said many Internet sites are fronts for money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorist financing, and minors and young adults are often their biggest victims. ``There are no social benefits for Internet gambling,''Leach said. The bill would use federal authority to regulate payment systems to attack online gambling, most of which is conducted in offshore tax havens. The bill would require the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to develop systems to identify payments to internet gambling. Block Money Transfers The U.S. Justice Department would have authority to block money transfers to offshore gaming sites and seek injunctions against persons who foster illegal gambling via the Internet. House Republicans supported the measure as a way ``to clear the record, to purge the smear on the Congress'' of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Goodlatte said. Abramoff, 47, used his connections with Republican leaders to block similar legislation banning online gaming on four occasions since 2000, Leach said. Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to corruption charges after a U.S. government investigation into his financial dealings in a scandal that brought down then-House Majority Leader Tom Delay, a Texas Republican. Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the bill restricted individual rights. ``What kind of social, cultural authoritarianism are we practicing here?'' Frank said during debate. ``The fundamental principle of the autonomy of the individual is at stake today.'' Clarifies the Law Online gambling is already deemed illegal in the U.S. under a 1961 law against using telephone lines to place interstate bets. The House bill clarifies the applicability of the wire statute to online gaming. The Justice Department has used that law to prosecute offshore Web-site operators and seek injunctions against U.S.- based companies that foster online gambling by accepting advertising or providing Internet links. U.S. casino operators including MGM Mirage and Harrah's Entertainment Inc. have urged Congress to consider legalizing and regulating online gambling. Representative Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat, called Goodlatte a hypocrite because the bill wouldn't block online gambling on horseracing, which is legal under a separate U.S. statute governing the horseracing industry. ``He made a deal with the horseracing industry to exempt them from this bill,'' Berkley said. ``And why is that? Because if he didn't, they would fight this tooth and nail.'' The Bush administration supports the House legislation, as do U.S. professional sports leagues, including Major League Baseball and the National Football League, U.S. financial- services firms and 48 of 50 state attorneys general, Leach said.

[SBriand 4]

I will wait till the bill actually gets passed.

[Yoda 1]

Nothing new to see here...move along....move along.

[timwakefield 68]

Am I missing something? Is there anything in this bill to restrict cash-outs from pokersites? Why should we get our money out now?

[Suited_Up 2]

I will wait till the bill actually gets passed.

QFTNow lock it up.

[aadams_22 3]

I will wait till the bill actually gets passed.

exactly...it still has to get past the Senate before it can even hit Bush's desk...even after that the Supreme Court will have a say in itit's not over yet

[....Ian.... 0]

exactly...it still has to get past the Senate before it can even hit Bush's desk...even after that the Supreme Court will have a say in itit's not over yet

the supreme court? i didnt know they'd have a say in the law passing(NO SW). i think eventually if the law passes THEN you'll have lawsuits that go to the supreme court

[DCSports92GSR 0]

the supreme court? i didnt know they'd have a say in the law passing(NO SW). i think eventually if the law passes THEN you'll have lawsuits that go to the supreme court

My letter to my rep:Representative Akin,As one of your new constituents, previously represented in the house by representative Clay from the Missouri First, I would like to ask why you voted in favor of H.R. 4411 ( Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ). I would like to know why you feel that putting regulation on the internet gambling business is in my best interest as a constituent. Should I not have the ability and right to play online poker?Many of the local Missouri card rooms charge a higher rake ( A fee taken from the pot to the house, to pay for spreading the game ) than the online card rooms, and over time the difference in that rake can account for a large sum of money. Tipping, gas and other means also drive up the cost of playing at the local casinos.I have many Missouri friends whose sole income is from playing online poker. It isn't gambling to them, or me... it's a way of life, and not a real easy one at that. So why do you feel the need to make it harder on us? Why do you feel that betting on "Slow Betsy" to place is fine, but value betting bottom two pair on the river isn't?As your constituent and a proud resident of the Missouri Second, I demand an explanation on why you feel that my right and ability to choose to gamble online other than at a local casino should be the government's choice and not mine. Thank you for your time.

[Mattnxtc 0]

It has the pass the senate and theres more powerful democrates in the senate that oppose this then in the house. It was always expected to pass the house...but probably wont pass the senate

[jmeisner 0]

Am I missing something? Is there anything in this bill to restrict cash-outs from pokersites? Why should we get our money out now?

The main thing I am worried about is some form of cutting and running by the oversea-based poker sites. If the law is passed, then they lose their entire US clientele, which means the companies probably fold (no pun intended).So, why would they let anyone cash out after online poker had been deemed illegal? After all, it's not as though you would be able to sue to get your money back. You would have already "committed a crime" by having your money on the site in the first place.

[canadarules 0]

this is whyCANADA RULES!!!

[Suited_Up 2]

this is whyCANADA RULES!!!

Good point! Lets check the scoreboard.Canada- 1World - 958,349

[jowest 0]

My letter to my rep:Representative Akin,As one of your new constituents, previously represented in the house by representative Clay from the Missouri First, I would like to ask why you voted in favor of H.R. 4411 ( Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ). I would like to know why you feel that putting regulation on the internet gambling business is in my best interest as a constituent. Should I not have the ability and right to play online poker?Many of the local Missouri card rooms charge a higher rake ( A fee taken from the pot to the house, to pay for spreading the game ) than the online card rooms, and over time the difference in that rake can account for a large sum of money. Tipping, gas and other means also drive up the cost of playing at the local casinos.I have many Missouri friends whose sole income is from playing online poker. It isn't gambling to them, or me... it's a way of life, and not a real easy one at that. So why do you feel the need to make it harder on us? Why do you feel that betting on "Slow Betsy" to place is fine, but value betting bottom two pair on the river isn't?As your constituent and a proud resident of the Missouri Second, I demand an explanation on why you feel that my right and ability to choose to gamble online other than at a local casino should be the government's choice and not mine. Thank you for your time.

I have never wanted to be libertarian more than right now

[swahnroger 0]

The main thing I am worried about is some form of cutting and running by the oversea-based poker sites. If the law is passed, then they lose their entire US clientele, which means the companies probably fold (no pun intended).So, why would they let anyone cash out after online poker had been deemed illegal? After all, it's not as though you would be able to sue to get your money back. You would have already "committed a crime" by having your money on the site in the first place.

If the new bill will make it illegal to play poker on the internet, then obviously it must have been legal before. Thus you were no "committing a crime" when you deposited your money.Further, this bill would only apply to people living in the USA.

[SBriand 4]

The main thing I am worried about is some form of cutting and running by the oversea-based poker sites. If the law is passed, then they lose their entire US clientele, which means the companies probably fold (no pun intended).So, why would they let anyone cash out after online poker had been deemed illegal? After all, it's not as though you would be able to sue to get your money back. You would have already "committed a crime" by having your money on the site in the first place.

Are you reading the same bill I am reading?

[timwakefield 68]

If the new bill will make it illegal to play poker on the internet, then obviously it must have been legal before. Thus you were no "committing a crime" when you deposited your money.Further, this bill would only apply to people living in the USA.

Yes and double-yes.

[Socrates 0]

1. I watched a news braodcast on this topic this morning. Apparently it forbids debts to online casinos to be made by credit card. When depositing or playing, you are not creating or paying a debt on poker sites.2. This is most likely a ploy in order to try and force the online gaming companies to come to the US government and offer a piece of the action in the form of taxes on monies collected from players within the US borders.3 I'll cash out when it passes and they actually start arresting people. Even then I'll have another few years of playing as all of those cases will be appealed and appealed for years until the Supreme Court makes a decision.Look at WA state. Do you thinkn they've all stopped playing online? Why havent' we heard of thousands being arrested in WA for playing $5 SnG's? Scare tactics are a way for government and the self "right"eous wing to get you to do what they want or to stop doing something they are not benefiting from. Sort of like the colored alerts after 911 - they were put in place to create panic and allow for laws to pass that violated our civil rights to make it look like giving up rights was safer than keeping them. Stepping down now.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

1. I watched a news braodcast on this topic this morning. Apparently it forbids debts to online casinos to be made by credit card. When depositing or playing, you are not creating or paying a debt on poker sites.2. This is most likely a ploy in order to try and force the online gaming companies to come to the US government and offer a piece of the action in the form of taxes on monies collected from players within the US borders.3 I'll cash out when it passes and they actually start arresting people. Even then I'll have another few years of playing as all of those cases will be appealed and appealed for years until the Supreme Court makes a decision.Look at WA state. Do you thinkn they've all stopped playing online? Why havent' we heard of thousands being arrested in WA for playing $5 SnG's? Scare tactics are a way for government and the self "right"eous wing to get you to do what they want or to stop doing something they are not benefiting from. Sort of like the colored alerts after 911 - they were put in place to create panic and allow for laws to pass that violated our civil rights to make it look like giving up rights was safer than keeping them. Stepping down now.

You're right up to this point. Recently, on their trip to DC to fight this, Full Tilt pros were *begging* to be taxed and set up shop in the US. It legitimizes their operation as anyone who might have been scared off by the whole "offshore wire transfer thing is now working with a US based company.Quite frankly, they don't care about the tax revenue.

[mrdannyg 274]

Good point! Lets check the scoreboard.Canada- 1World - 958,349

You forgot Elisha Cuthbert and good beer.Canada has 3 points.

[statedogg 0]

My letter to my Rep.....warning its long.Congressman Taylor,I have attached a copy of a letter that I mailed to your DC office in early June. I never received a response from you explaining your disagreement with my views and based on your voting record today July 11, 2006, I must assume you didn’t receive my letter. I also tried to email you this letter as well as an addendum to include my objections to H.R. 4411 along with my previously stated objections to H.R. 4777, but your internet email has not worked in months. I would greatly appreciate an explanation of your rationale on supporting H.R. 4411. In the letter contained I have outlined several apparent arguments for support of this bill and then exposed their fallacies. So please don’t attempt to convince me that this was a matter of national security. I have heard Republicans turn every issue into a matter of national security since 9/11. Again I am aware of the new threats we face, but until you can gain control of a physical national border why waste you time worrying about virtual borders. Moreover, the national security issue is not to be taken lightly or made a scapegoat for every agenda item. I also presume that many Republicans will publicly attempt to play on the general populations misunderstanding of the Jack Abramoff scandal and claim that they have righted themselves by taking a stand against online gambling, when passage of this bill is precisely half of what Jack Abramoff wanted. Furthermore do not try to take the moral high ground and claim that this is moral issue. This bill blatantly excludes online betting on horse racing from its reach. This bill epitomizes hypocrisy, and I thought you would be able to see that. While this bill was supported by both parties the Democrats we not nearly as supportive of this bill as the Republicans. I have only voted for one Democrat in my life, you. Now I am left wondering what has become of the Republican party ideals I was raised by, and being left with no option after seeing the Democratic party again legislate my personal decisions because “they know better than I what is good for me.” The idea of personal responsibility is lost in this country today. As evidenced by the reaction and recovery of South Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the people here are very capable of taking care of themselves and in many cases know better than our elected government officials. We do not need the government to protect us from ourselves. Parents here are able to supervise their children’s internet activity and decide what is right and wrong for their families. Sure some will succumb to addiction and hurt themselves or their family because of the temptation of internet gambling, but tell me an activity that if abused won’t be destructive. What do we do about the sex addicts, fishing addicts, the obese eating addicts, or alcoholics? How about last months surgeon generals report that second hand smoke kills 50,000 Americans annually? My point is that to save everyone form themselves you would have to outlaw everything from everybody. Or is that the goal of our government. How about we man up and leagalize and regulate it if it is too dangerous in its current state. I anxiously look forward to learning your validation of this bill. Lets hope the Senate is more sensible on this bill and that the House is more astute if and when H.R. 4777 is considered.

[chrozzo 19]

congressmen dont pay for their own gasoline...they all suck